BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

309 results for “condonation of delay”+ Natural Justiceclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,219Chennai1,175Delhi809Ahmedabad675Bangalore509Pune495Jaipur457Kolkata438Hyderabad416Chandigarh309Patna296Raipur272Indore262Surat231Visakhapatnam190Amritsar186Rajkot172Lucknow170Agra160Nagpur160Panaji151Cuttack141Cochin92Jodhpur54Guwahati49Dehradun38Jabalpur34Ranchi28Allahabad26SC24Varanasi6A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1DIPAK MISRA R.K. AGRAWAL PRAFULLA C. PANT1

Key Topics

Addition to Income47Natural Justice38Section 12A34Condonation of Delay29Limitation/Time-bar26Section 12A(1)(ac)22Section 14421Section 520Exemption

THE BAROT CO-OPERATIVE MULTIPURPOSE SOCIETY LIMITED,MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MANDI

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 671/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 671/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Barot Cooperative Vs. The Ito, बनाम Mandi Multipurpose Society Limited, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh 176120 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacat9554D अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rahul Sohu, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Sohu, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250Section 253

Showing 1–20 of 309 · Page 1 of 16

...
18
Section 25317
Section 153A16
Section 25015

Condonation of delay application or ought to have expressly called upon the Assessee to show cause why their appeal in Form No. 35 should not be dismissed as Time barred as delay is seen per se. In the absence of such an opportunity the impugned order is against the Principles of Natural Justice

FARID EDUCATIONAL SOCIAL WELFARE AND CHARITABLE SOCIETY,NEW SHASTRI NAGAR vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 608/CHANDI/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: This Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gera, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

condonation of delay in filing audit report in Form 10 B. The appellant will inform the Hon'ble Court about the decision of the CIT (Exemptions). 4. That the intimation under section 143(l)(a) of the Deputy Director of Income tax CPC dt. 13.06.2023 denying exemption ,is against the principles of natural justice

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA,ITO WARD 6(3), LUDHIANA,CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 734/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69B

delay for filing the appeal may please, be condoned in interest of natural justice and oblige.” 5.8 Further, our reference

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD6(3), LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A,O, ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 735/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69B

delay for filing the appeal may please, be condoned in interest of natural justice and oblige.” 5.8 Further, our reference

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD-6(3) LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 736/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69B

delay for filing the appeal may please, be condoned in interest of natural justice and oblige.” 5.8 Further, our reference

GOLDEN WINES, 2673 PHASE-1, BASANT AVENUE, DUGRI,LUDHIANA vs. NARESH KUMAR MEENA, ITO WARD-6(3) LUDHIANA, CURRENT JURISDICTIONAL A.O. ITO WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, all these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 733/CHANDI/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69B

delay for filing the appeal may please, be condoned in interest of natural justice and oblige.” 5.8 Further, our reference

SHRI SATISH SOIN,LUDHIANA vs. ACIT, CC-II, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/CHANDI/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Satish Soin, बनाम The Acit, House No.31, Garden Enclave, Central Circle-2, Vs South City-Ii, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan /Tan No: Advps6254N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Muskan Garg, Cas राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.05.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 Hybrid Hearing आदेश/Order Per Rajpal Yadav, Vp

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263

nature which do not call for recording of any specific finding. 3. In Ground No.2, assessee has pleaded that ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.94,59,870/- by disbelieving the claim of the assessee regarding exemption u/s 10(38) on account of Long Term Capital Gain. 4. Though there is a delay in the appeal

INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, MANDI GOBINDGARH, HQ SIRHIND vs. PARTAP INDUSTRIES LIMITED, RAJPURA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 464/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 464/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Ito, Vs. Partap Industries Limited, बनाम Rajpura Ward-1, New Libra Kothi, Mandi Gobindgarh Railway Road, Sirhind Hq. Sirhind, 140406 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aabcp0384Q अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: Shri Raman Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43BSection 5

justice would be met if we exercise discretion and condone the delay in filing the appeal. For such reason, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.” 7. In the instant case, we find that the matter is on a different footing. The matter is not about examining any question of law and rather

THE KOTLA BHARI MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETY LTD.,KHANNA vs. ITO, KHANNA, KHANNA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 381/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parveen Jindal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(b)

natural justice, and pointed out contradictions within the intimation order itself. The appeal was filed with a delay of 3350 days, attributed to inadequate legal advice, and supported by an affidavit. However, the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on the ground of being time-barred, rejecting the request for condonation

M/S LITTLE KANHAYA KNITWEARS,LUDHIANA vs. DCIT, CC-3, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 724/CHANDI/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 724/Chd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018019 M/S Little Kanhya Vs. The Dcit बनाम Central Circle-3, Knitwears, Ludhiana Ram Gali, Madhpuri-1, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaefl0415E अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Jcit Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30.12.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 21.01.2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 253Section 36Section 40

condonable or not, till further orders. 2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana has erred in passing the order which is illegal, against law and facts of the case as well and against the principles of natural justice. So the impugned order is liable to be quashed. Therefore, order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income

JYOTI SHARMA,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 192/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application Rejected)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 245Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

natural justice, the Ld. CIT(A) has held that there was sufficient cause for the delayed filing of the appeal and delay was condoned

IDREAM SOCIAL EDTECH FOUNDATION,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 809/CHANDI/2023[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Apr 2024AY 2024-25

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Parsad Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 282

natural justice, the matter deserve to remanded back for de novo hearing on merits and providing opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 3. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 272 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal against the ITA 808 & 809/CHD/2023 A.Y.2021-22 & 2024-25 3 order passed by the Commissioner of Income

IDREAM SOCIAL EDTECH FOUNDATION,PANCHKULA vs. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 808/CHANDI/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Parsad Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 282

natural justice, the matter deserve to remanded back for de novo hearing on merits and providing opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 3. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay of 272 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal against the ITA 808 & 809/CHD/2023 A.Y.2021-22 & 2024-25 3 order passed by the Commissioner of Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER , PATIALA vs. SH. SEWA SINGH, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 696/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 696/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Ito, Vs. Shri Sewa Singh, बनाम H. No. B-27,Focal Point, Patiala Patiala 147001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abjpj5347B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rahul Sohu, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02 .07.2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Sohu, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43BSection 69

justice would be met if we exercise discretion and condone the delay in filing the appeal. For such reason, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.” 7. In the instant case, we find that the matter is on a different footing. The matter is not about examining any question of law and rather

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, PATIALA vs. SH. MOHAR SINGH, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 445/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

justice would be met if we exercise discretion and condone the delay in filing the appeal. For such reason, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.” 7. In the instant case, we find that the matter is on a different footing. The matter is not about examining any question of law and rather

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATIALA vs. GURMEET SINGH PANDHER, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 437/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

justice would be met if we exercise discretion and condone the delay in filing the appeal. For such reason, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.” 7. In the instant case, we find that the matter is on a different footing. The matter is not about examining any question of law and rather

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PATIALA vs. KULWARAN SINGH, PATIALA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 438/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 36Section 43B

justice would be met if we exercise discretion and condone the delay in filing the appeal. For such reason, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.” 7. In the instant case, we find that the matter is on a different footing. The matter is not about examining any question of law and rather

AMAR SINGH VILLAGE DARBA KALAN, SIRSA HARYANA,SIRSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SIRSA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 46/CHANDI/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: The Cit(A) & Without Giving Any Further Opportunity, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee On Technical Ground I.E. On Account Of Delay In Filing The Appeal Which Is Not Proper. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Assessee Being Illiterate Not Conversant With The Email Facility And, As Such, He Was Handicapped In Not Filing The Appeal Within Time

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147

natural justice, the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the matter may be restored to the file

SH. JATINDER KAURA (DECEASED) THROUGH L/H SMT. DIMPLE KAURA,RAIKOT, LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JAGRAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1394/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1394/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Jatinder Kaura The Ito, (Through L/H Smt. Dimple Kaura, Vs Ward-1, House No. 338, New Green City, Jagraon. Raikot, Distt. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Agwpk6095P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kuldeep Singh, Itp & Shri Mps Malhotra, Itp Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Kuldeep Singh, ITP & Shri MPS Malhotra, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

nature , nothing survived in it after his death. After the death, I have furnished the death certificate of my husband to the concerned bank and requested them to close the account . Since there was no transaction in the bank a/c No. 4605201000031 this account become dormant and was closed by the banker. The statement of this bank account

JATINDER NATH,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA

In the result, both appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 729/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 5Section 68

justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea